Gerar teste (quiz)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: an estimated ~30 s runtime, the exact return payload, and the side effect of writing .md and .json files to a fixed path ('SEMPRE ... neste PC'). Annotations only cover readOnly/openWorld/destructive; the write behavior and latency disclosure are genuinely additive. It does not mention that the operation consumes the notebook's AI quota, which is the main hidden cost implied by the 'uso_maximo' parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the returned payload, then the output-location constraint. No filler, and the emphasized 'SEMPRE' correctly flags the one surprising fact (fixed output path).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Eight parameters with no output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned fields is valuable and mostly sufficient. The main remaining gap is that quota consumption (the reason 'uso_maximo' and notebook_uso exist) is not surfaced in the description for what is an openWorld, non-readOnly operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with enums documented for 'quantidade', 'dificuldade' and 'tipos_pergunta', so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as defaults, constraints, or how 'fontes' interacts with 'foco'. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Gera um teste') and immediately enumerates the payload (questões com alternativas, resposta certa, explicação, dica, gabarito) plus file output. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like notebook_gerar_cartoes or notebook_gerar_relatorio by the 'teste/quiz' artifact, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The only pointer to a related tool (notebook_uso) lives in the schema for 'uso_maximo', not in the description itself. An agent must infer that this is the quiz-generation path from the wording alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.